You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It hardcodes a limited number of function classes (which doesn't even include all function classes in the core interpreter) instead of supporting duck-typing.
In case of a "function" object, it relies on a borrowed reference to the function.
It is returning a C string instead of a Python string, so we cannot return a new reference even if we wanted to.
Since PyEval_GetFuncName and PyEval_GetFuncDesc are always used together, we might as well replace them by a single function with a proper API.
I'm wary of making error messages depend on the str representation of a function; that would prevent us from changing it later.
I'm wary of "%S" used in error messages. Those are for the programmer, not the user, so they should prefer __repr__.
I train beginners to recognize "<function f at 0x7f9f4bbe5e18>" as a sign of omitted parentheses. The ugliness is useful: it shows you're dealing with an internal object, not a data value.
So, I think "<function f>" is much better than just "f()". I wouldn't mind "<function f()>" (maybe even with the full signature), but that doesn't quite help this case.
(I don't care much for the "at 0x7f9f4bbe5e18" part, but that's not the issue here.)
I'm wary of making error messages depend on the str representation of a function; that would prevent us from changing it later.
Why wouldn't we be able to change anything? Typically, the exact string of an error message is NOT part of the API (the exception *type* is, but we're not talking about that).
I'm wary of "%S" used in error messages. Those are for the programmer, not the user
I'm not following here. Given that Python is a programming language, the user *is* the programmer.
Anyway, you don't have to be convinced. I'm trying to solve a problem here and I have two approaches (PR 14890 and PR 15295). I'm more inclined towards PR 15295, but if you like the idea of PR 14890 better, we can go with that instead.
Maybe you're misunderstanding something. The goal is not really to change error messages, only the way how they are produced. For example, we currently have
>>> deff(): pass
>>> f(**1)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: f() argument after ** must be a mapping, not int
This is about how the "f()" in the error message is produced. Currently, this uses PyEval_GetFuncName() and PyEval_GetFuncDesc(). For the reasons explained in this issue, I want to replace that.
I see two ways of doing this:
(PR 14890) Write a new function _PyObject_FunctionStr(func) which returns func.__qualname__ + "()" with a suitable fallback if there is no __qualname__ attribute. At some point, we could also introduce a %F format character for this.
(PR 15295) Use str(func) in the error message and change various __str__ methods (really tp_str functions) to give a more readable output.
New changeset bf17d41 by Miss Islington (bot) (Jeroen Demeyer) in branch 'master': bpo-37645: add new function _PyObject_FunctionStr() (GH-14890) bf17d41
With this change, CPython no longer uses PyEval_GetFuncName/PyEval_GetFuncDesc internally.
Shall we deprecate/discourage them?
Shall we expose PyObject_FunctionStr publicly?
I've recently covered these two functions in tests, so this issue caught my eye.
Can we start the deprecation process? Or is there anything holding us back?
Before deprecating them, we should provide a good replacement for the use case they served.
It could mean exposing PyObject_FunctionStr, which would mean documenting it, and deciding what kind of guarantees we have for it. Is the output gonna change? Or is this something like “the perferred way to reference callable objects” -- and in that case, why isn't it the same as str?
Or instead of exposing PyObject_FunctionStr there could just be a “recipe” with hints on how to replace them.
Activity
jdemeyer commentedon Jul 21, 2019
PyEval_GetFuncName is bad API because
Since PyEval_GetFuncName and PyEval_GetFuncDesc are always used together, we might as well replace them by a single function with a proper API.
jdemeyer commentedon Jul 21, 2019
jdemeyer commentedon Aug 4, 2019
Another solution would be to change the __str__ of various function objects to a prettier output. For example, we currently have
We could change this to
and then use "%S" to display the functions in error messages. But I have a feeling that this is a more controversial change than PR 14890.
vstinner commentedon Aug 14, 2019
Maybe repr(func) should be left unchanged, but str(func) can be enhanced?
jdemeyer commentedon Aug 14, 2019
Yes, that is what I meant.
encukou commentedon Aug 15, 2019
I am not convinced.
I'm wary of making error messages depend on the str representation of a function; that would prevent us from changing it later.
I'm wary of "%S" used in error messages. Those are for the programmer, not the user, so they should prefer __repr__.
I train beginners to recognize "<function f at 0x7f9f4bbe5e18>" as a sign of omitted parentheses. The ugliness is useful: it shows you're dealing with an internal object, not a data value.
So, I think "<function f>" is much better than just "f()". I wouldn't mind "<function f()>" (maybe even with the full signature), but that doesn't quite help this case.
(I don't care much for the "at 0x7f9f4bbe5e18" part, but that's not the issue here.)
jdemeyer commentedon Aug 17, 2019
Why wouldn't we be able to change anything? Typically, the exact string of an error message is NOT part of the API (the exception *type* is, but we're not talking about that).
I'm not following here. Given that Python is a programming language, the user *is* the programmer.
Anyway, you don't have to be convinced. I'm trying to solve a problem here and I have two approaches (PR 14890 and PR 15295). I'm more inclined towards PR 15295, but if you like the idea of PR 14890 better, we can go with that instead.
jdemeyer commentedon Aug 17, 2019
Maybe you're misunderstanding something. The goal is not really to change error messages, only the way how they are produced. For example, we currently have
This is about how the "f()" in the error message is produced. Currently, this uses PyEval_GetFuncName() and PyEval_GetFuncDesc(). For the reasons explained in this issue, I want to replace that.
I see two ways of doing this:
(PR 14890) Write a new function _PyObject_FunctionStr(func) which returns func.__qualname__ + "()" with a suitable fallback if there is no __qualname__ attribute. At some point, we could also introduce a %F format character for this.
(PR 15295) Use str(func) in the error message and change various __str__ methods (really tp_str functions) to give a more readable output.
encukou commentedon Sep 11, 2019
I like PR 14890 better. I like the separation of representation for error messages (where it's clearer that this is a callable) and for __str__.
Also, changing the __str__ of functions would need much wider discussion than on issues/PRs.
I left some comments on the PR.
jdemeyer commentedon Sep 11, 2019
I don't see anything. Either I'm doing something wrong or GitHub is messed up.
encukou commentedon Sep 11, 2019
My bad, I didn't publish the comments. They should be there now.
miss-islington commentedon Nov 5, 2019
New changeset bf17d41 by Miss Islington (bot) (Jeroen Demeyer) in branch 'master':
bpo-37645: add new function _PyObject_FunctionStr() (GH-14890)
bf17d41
encukou commentedon Nov 6, 2019
With this change, CPython no longer uses PyEval_GetFuncName/PyEval_GetFuncDesc internally.
Shall we deprecate/discourage them?
Shall we expose PyObject_FunctionStr publicly?
sobolevn commentedon Oct 16, 2022
I've recently covered these two functions in tests, so this issue caught my eye.
Can we start the deprecation process? Or is there anything holding us back?
encukou commentedon Oct 17, 2022
Before deprecating them, we should provide a good replacement for the use case they served.
It could mean exposing PyObject_FunctionStr, which would mean documenting it, and deciding what kind of guarantees we have for it. Is the output gonna change? Or is this something like “the perferred way to reference callable objects” -- and in that case, why isn't it the same as
str?Or instead of exposing PyObject_FunctionStr there could just be a “recipe” with hints on how to replace them.
vstinner commentedon Mar 18, 2024
I found 3 projects using PyEval_GetFuncName() in PyPI top 8,000 projects (at 2024-03-16):
Code:
I found no matches for PyEval_GetFuncDesc().